Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Well maybe that's one way of circumventing the great firewall - just have Tibet-protests on just about any website of interest. Eventually they'd have the choice of pulling the plug on either the firewall or the internet connection itself.

So they either give up the firewall and open up, or kill the internet access entirely and cut themselves off from what has proven to be the single most important invention of recent years. It's lose-lose for them, and win-win for us. What have we got to lose?

Many young people haven't been well versed in the Western romanticism of Communist China, though recently Obama did idealize China's transportation infrastructure in a effort to promote investment in our own. I recommend the The Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party. [youtube.com] The difference in our cultures is a real eye opener.

1. WE are in control Muthafucker2. 40 million dead and counting.3. Don't make me re-educate you.4. If 12 year olds are good enough for Mao, then they are good enough for the Gymnast team.5. Pollution? What pollution?6. One kid. It's the LAW.7. Never too young for a job!9. Never met a technology we couldn't steal.

No, if you RTFA, you'll see that it's China who have blocked access to it. Ordinarily, it's possible to access any localised iTunes store from anywhere in the world. That's why I can buy from the Australian iTunes store, even though I'm currently overseas. So Americans who are in China should be able to purchase from the USA store.

China's evil is beyond communism, it's the worst of capitalism (profit is the most important value) socialism (complete government control) and fascism (persecution of minorities and group-think).
Communism in it's true form is more akin to anarchism - it's never been seen to work because it's never really been tried...

Communism in its true form is more like the Amish. Start reading your Marx and Engels - the roots of Anarchism and Communism:
http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm [marxists.org] early Communists and Anarchists sought to preserve the communal lands and communal lifestyle, but also sought to overthrow the feudal aristocracy to establish democracy, this made them both progressive and conservative. more on the Amish see:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/amish.htm [howstuffworks.com]

Communism is a "socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism [wikipedia.org]

Having studied political science and economics the statements I quoted do capture the essence of communism and anarchism accurately enough for the purposes of this discussion. My goal was not to provide an in depth contrast and comparison of those two concepts. If that's what you're looking for or expect then I suggest you find a site dedicated to discussion of political/economic theories.

As to you comments on my choice of Wikipedia as a source, if you can find sources that you believe are more accurate a

Communism in it's true form is more akin to anarchism[sic] - it's never been seen to work because it's never really been tried...

Indeed, well said. This is why, although I've always been a "leftie", I've never called myself a Marxist.

In my experience, the only people who call themselves Marzists are those who have never actually read any Marx, and thus I am excluded. But anarchy would be an attractive alternative to our current situation if we could find a way to keep the big corporations from barging in

You have a better sense of "ironic" than the original post author. The Chinese government blocking access to criticism of the Chinese government blocking access to criticism is not "ironic"; it's "recursive".

"It seems like suspending iTunes is punishment for iTunes, but really it doesn't hurt iTunes, it hurts us," said a note on Chinese Apple fan site macfans.com.cn, according to the AP.

Do Chinese leaders actually think what they are doing punishes iTunes? Mayhaps, a more devious conclusion; like the applications to protest in the "authorized protest zone", they are trying to incite outrage among hidden dissidents to... strengthen their unpaid labor force.

Or maybe its just the technologically incompetent trying to rule the unruly propaganda machine that is technology with an iron (outdated; see steel) fist. Or both?

That will send a strong message to the chinese leaders, a country with over a billion people in a world of 6 billion people and a olympic event involving hundreds if not thousands of athletes and their support staff. 40 downloads.

Guess that shows just how much athletes really care about peace and such.

Did I download it? No, but then I don't try to pretend that my sporting event is anything else then an ego trip to prove I am better then everyone else.

Frankly, the truth is nobody really cares about Tibet. Oh we might buy the t-shirt but we also buy t-shirts with the logo of a soda brand or whatever band the music industry pushed on us.

Show me an athlete who refuses his medal to make a point and then I might think the olympics are any different from the soccer world championship.

Downloading something is a pretty modest show of solidarity because hardly anyone will notice.

I know the Olympics aren't supposed to be "politicized", but let's not be hypocrites: it's ALL about politics, and the fact that they are in Beijing this year is a huge political stunt.

If a bunch of athletes want to protest China's activities, I think they should go all the way and have a walk off. Just get to the starting line, wait for the buzzer, then stand there like an idiot until the others finish their run.

They have the power to kill free debate and discussion within their borders. That's true. They have the power to murder Tibetans and then tell the rest of the country that Tibetans are very happy to be part of China, on pain of imprisonment.

But as a free people, we have the right to point and them and call them cowards. That's about our freedom to call it like we see it. As long as there is freedom of speech anywhere in the world, then no one has the "right" to not have their evil discussed abroad.

I second that. They are cowards - afraid to look in the mirror. Now some chinese person's going to reply to this and tell me about all the western hypocrisy, but unlike most westerners, they'll never turn their gaze upon themselves.

This behaviour reminds me of the type of person who is so self-absorbed that they don't know what a complete joke people think they are. All the while, they try to sell you on their big opinion of themselves.

The chinese actions would be hilarious, except that so much human suffering is involved. China is completely out of touch with itself.

But it's far easier for people to go into denial, as you can see when a thread whose content is "They are cowards - afraid to look in the mirror. Now some chinese person's going to reply to this and tell me

It's easier to blame the Chinese than look at our own problems and realize we in the West should clean house first.

Now, America is deeply flawed in several ways, and I'm no fan of the Bush cabal (having protested against him on numerous occasions), and think Guantanamo is going to be a black eye on this country for a century to come. THAT SAID, I think your statements go too far. Show me anti-Bush bloggers or songwriters disappearing off the streets of NY or Chicago or LA, and I'll agree America's problems deserve more attention than China's. Show me major websites and other internet services blocked to Americans by the government, major religious movements crushed, single-party leaders in power for decades, and then you're proven right. Until then, you took your point too far. Yes, Bush/Cheney have done everything they can to get us there, and did make fearful strides towards totalitarianism, but the U.S. is not quite China yet.

Why, most westerners actually think that the citizens of Taiwan actually want to be a separate country!

The next thing those crazy westerners will be trying to tell us is that the Chinese governement actually masaccred students in Tienneman Square! What a load of propaganda!

You think this is funny? Sarcastic?

You're just proving my point.

The current Taiwanese president's (who was popularly elected) stance on Taiwan's status is that he wouldn't push for independence, instead preferring to tread the fine line of the current status quo. The Taiwanese aren't actually loathing for (re)union with China, but they aren't unequivocally for independence either.

And I didn't read People's Daily about the Tienanmen Square event. Did you use CNN/Foxnews as your sources? Have you watched this before? http://www.tsquare.tv/ [tsquare.tv] (note: it isn't made by the Chinese)

And as for the more serious items...

Uh, how about hold elections? The kind where anybody can run? And how about having a free press where one isn't punished for expressing one's opinions? That would be a good start and in the long run would substantially improve the situation.

Considering the fact that most of China is still in poverty, how would you resolve the problem of buying votes? How would you prevent "free press" from inciting revolts and bringing the whole society into chaos? [note: this isn't far fetched, it has more than once in the past few decades] And if you think your suggestions are really insightful, I'd have to break your bubble. The Chinese government tried to move towards this direction two decades ago, and it sort of backfired, resulting in the Tienanmen incident. The government had been cautious to try it again (but it seems they are gradually opening up again in recent years). I'm not making this up... go watch the documentary (above link) yourself.

As a matter of pragmatism, we live with it. That's what recognizing a government means. It purely pragmatic. You make agreements with a government because it's pragmatic. You keep them because you want your word to mean something.

But recognizing a government's "right" to oppress its citizens is not to recognize a moral right, or to disavow your own moral right to stand, and indeed act against it.

How brave, I think foreign leaders will be impressed and change their evil ways.

*shrug* - the apartheid regime owes it's downfall partly due to economic sanctions by the western world. You can't achieve everything just by getting public opinion in the west on your side. But the western world is powerful, and public opinion is a powerful factor in the western world.

You are right that you don't have to be brave to protest for Tibet while living in the US, you just have to be willing to get of your butt. So what?

How is it our place to criticize them? A country should be able to make decisions about what ideas it tolerates within its borders. Not all countries will make the same decision.

So we should accept another country's right to censorship because that's the moral thing to do? How come that moral concept is universal, and the moral concept of human rights is not? I don't see how that position makes sense.

We should in theory, but only if people are free (both politically and economically) to leave the country at will. If people choose to live in a totalitarian state, then I don't have a problem with it, but somewhere like China has strict controls on emigration and a population so large that if a sizeable proportion of them wanted to leave the rest of the world couldn't easily accommodate them.

Gah, I hate getting roped into bickering on the Internet (which is different from arguing), but that just irritated me so much I have to respond before someone Godwins this thread.

"A country should be able to make decisions about what ideas it tolerates within its borders."

If you take the liberal constitutional approach, the one with all the founding fathers and such, no, absolutely not. If you take the ancient Athenian view, the one that killed Socrates, then yes, but only under a democratic government. Since the Chinese government is not democratically elected or accountable to "the people," you're conflating the "country" with the "people in power." That's okay, I guess, as long as you have some rationale for determining the legitimacy of the Chinese regime. Is that justification simply that the people in power have a right to speak for the country simply because they were able to pull themselves up to the top---e.g., might makes right? As far as I know that particular sophistry was debunked thousands of years ago (again, see Socrates). Is there some sort of divine authority that legitimizes the CCP's authority---doubtful, since they're atheistic. Capitalism has taken hold with a vengeance in China, so I guess Marxism's out the door. So what's the source of the Chinese government's "right" to do anything?

"There's no scientific proof that our way is the universal right!"

That might be because ethics does not pose any scientific questions. But maybe you're right; as long as there's one guy out there who doesn't agree with us, we should all abandon our principles for fear of offending his sensibilities.

Not everyone agrees with us enlightened, progressive, "free" Westerners. Get over it and get over yourselves. There's no scientific proof that our way is the universal right!

The West kicked the ass of the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Italy in WWII, and then watched communism crumble into the ground. Politically free, free market societies simply tend to do better in the long run than repressive, totalitarian societies. Or look at the Arab dictatorships of the Middle East: sure, a lot of them are wealthy, but they're basically all failures. In scientific terms they have produced nothing, in economic terms they produce nothing except oil, and in military terms, none of them could take on Israel in a fight.

Suppressing political discourse and reporting basically means that the government is no longer accountable for its failures. For instance, if a family protests the fact that a school collapsed in an earthquake and killed their daughter, and you arrest the family (which is the kind of shit the Chinese government is currently doing), well sure it helps the government maintain control. But it also means that the corrupt people who built the substandard schools go free and the problem doesn't get fixed. Perhaps you get stability, but in the long run the lack of government accountability means that the system lacks the ability to improve itself and adapt to changing conditions. Basically, you're saying that the ideas and opinions of 99% of your population aren't worth listening to. That's just a stupid way to run a society. And keep in mind that for all of China's impressive economic growth, the vast majority of the country is still dirt poor. They've managed to create a middle and upper class, but it remains to be seen whether the rest of the country can share in the gains.

How the hell is this "Insightful". There's a gaping flaw in the premise.

Politically free, free market societies simply tend to do better in the long run than repressive, totalitarian societies.

Oh yeah? You want to give me a few examples of "Politically free, free market societies" that don't "suppress political discourse"? You can't do it. Countries that were once beacons of "liberal-democratic" hope like the UK and the US have become riddled with censorship, political repression and eroding human and civil rights. Other countries that have managed to a certain extent to keep some of these liberal principles aren't really "f

It is impossible to compare the power of Chinese leaders to western regimes, because in the west we have so many more checks and balances. One of those checks and balances is public outrage. Sure it's not perfect, but it's a hell

Or look at the Arab dictatorships of the Middle East: sure, a lot of them are wealthy, but they're basically all failures. In scientific terms they have produced nothing, in economic terms they produce nothing except oil, and in military terms, none of them could take on Israel in a fight.

Let's not get excited and go overboard.

The region of Iraq was historically known as Mesopotamia (Greek: "between the rivers"). It was home to the world's first known civilization, the Sumerian culture, followed by the Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian cultures, whose influence extended into neighboring regions as early as 5000 BC. These civilizations produced some of the earliest writing and some of the first sciences, mathematics, laws and philosophies of the world; hence its common epithet, the "Cradle of Civilization"

Also read a bit about the Islamic Golden Age beginning in the 8th century.

He specifically said Arab dictatorships, those examples thousands of years old don't apply. Sure, they weren't democratic back then, but the term dictatorship doesn't apply either. Something changed between their golden age and their current crappy situation (amongst other things, crusades and European and North American actions)

In response to your first point: the assumption that democratic societies do better in the long run than totalitarian societies is now being directly challenged by China's ascension.
Past totalitarian societies tended to be autarkic and limited market freedom, and as such were very inefficient economically. China has taken a different route and as Naomi Klein (The Shock Syndrome) says, China is now the world's most successful capitalistic society.
I live in Beijing half of every year and travel throughout China. When you see 60 and 70 year-old ladies with pickaxes cheerfully working on building roads, you begin to understand the strength that China has at their command. If you can unite the people and motivate them towards fulfilling common goals you have a strong hand. There is a pioneer spirit in China that has long been lacking in most Western societies.
But make no mistake, the Chinese are not docile: there were 78,000 protests in the country last year. The government is sitting on a societal nuclear reactor: they need to allow just enough freedom that people remain motivated, without allowing enough for people to feel emboldened to demand more than can be provided. There is a very conscientious direction using "carrot and stick"
control rods to keep the reaction moderated without going critical...
To compare China with the Middle East economically is way off base. IMO the ME produces nothing except oil because it can do so and remain viable, but China produces just about everything. According to Kevin Philips (in so many words), empires have historically tended to become fragile and crumble when the states controlling them turn from manufacturing and production of tangible goods to service and finance. By those lights, China is just in ascendancy.
But wait: like Japan in the 80's I believe that the China's seeming strength masks critical structural problems. First, China is 100 years too late. Continued social stability in China is going to depend on people feeling that the government, for all its corruption and repression, is worth supporting because life is getting better for them. China's current growth is completely unsustainable in the long run with the current level of resource use. The Chinese leaders are between a rock and a hard place (aren't we all) choosing between quick gains using unsustainable means, and some sacrifice now and investment in R&D. So far they have pretty consistently chosen the former.
Also, the demographics are not in their favor with the "success" of the one-child policy. Then there is the critical problem of corruption. Most people in the West see the CCP as a monolithic entity, without realizing that it maintains control through a complex tree of provincial governments and petty bureaucracies, many of which operate under the assumption that "the mountains are high and the emperor is far away", and are totally corrupt. The Party has stated that eliminating corruption is essential to its long-term survival. No easy task.
Economically, too, there are storm clouds gathering. Already global capital is moving to Vietnam and other places where labor is even cheaper than in China; and the RMB is rising, making exports more expensive. Factories are closing everywhere and the government is talking about supporting the stock market.
Make no mistake, China is presently strong and will remain strong for a long time to come, but the "good times" may well be coming to an end

How is it your place to claim a massive tract of land and treat those born on it like property, setting down arbitrary rules and taxing them because they popped out of the wrong vagina? Countries exist for the good of their citizens; to maintain order and to promote the intellectual progress and well-being of those living there, not to provide cheap labor/praise for a select ruling class.

Actually, studies comparing economics and freedom have shown a strong correlation between social freedom and economic growth and development. Although maybe not the level of proof, it does show that there are strong advantages for everyone in increasing personal freedom.

Actually there isn't but there is scientific evidence, i.e. repeated attempts at creating a communist government, which eventually led to dictatorship or a tyrannical rule as the government had too much power. Now I have to admit in comparison to other communist governments China seems to actually be trying to do what it considers right for the majority of its citizens, although obviously that is going to create conflict due to the very nature of what they have to control.

I'm English. I therefore don't have the right to carry a firearm. This would probably cause (possibly armed) riots in the streets over in the USA. Me? I'm perfectly happy not carrying one, and knowing that the people I see aren't going to be carrying one.

The rate of gun crime in England didn't exactly go down when the legal guns were taken away.

What are you talking about? Civilians never had the right to go around carrying guns (the police don't either, excep for select groups), so from which orifice are you pulling your statistics?

As for criminals, they will be criminals and the rest of society has no control over them. The whole point of being a criminal is to set yourself aside (outcast yourself, if you will) from the common aspirations of the commun

Yes, you can access slashdot from China. In fact, I'm sitting at a computer in one of Shanghai's suburban neighborhoods.
You're jumping to some pretty big conclusions there. A lot of the Western media covering Chinese affairs do nothing but criticize. I'm not saying they shouldn't criticize, but it really leaves Westerners with the impression that the Chinese government is so cruel and harsh that all the citizens are living in fear. Um, no. We really aren't that affected at all, and I can say (because yes, I have lived in the US and Australia) that life here is no different, except for the annoying fact that I can't access Freewebs.

A lot of the Western media covering Chinese affairs do nothing but criticize.

The right to disbelieve is about as sacred as you get in the West. The chinese seem to believe they have the right to control other peoples thinking - including in the west. Obviously we're not going to get along very well.

We really aren't that affected at all, and I can say (because yes, I have lived in the US and Australia) that life here is no different, except for the annoying fact that I can't access Freewebs.

If its history we're talking about, then what about America's history of human rights abuse (slave trade anyone?), or the UK (slaves again, plus that whole empire thing, and navvies).

In fact almost all western countries have just as bad a record as China, only for us a lot of it is in the past. for the US that past isn't too far back, we are in fact talking just decades since the 'not slaves any more honest' were fully accorded the rights they were promised by Lincoln.

Not that I don't like America, I do, its just that I don't hide from the truth of things.

So, check your history before declaring China to be the fount of all that is wrong in the world.

If its history we're talking about, then what about America's history of human rights abuse (slave trade anyone?), or the UK (slaves again, plus that whole empire thing, and navvies). In fact almost all western countries have just as bad a record as China, only for us a lot of it is in the past. for the US that past isn't too far back, we are in fact talking just decades since the 'not slaves any more honest' were fully accorded the rights they were promised by Lincoln.

The difference is not that the United States has made no mistakes- it's made some pretty awful ones. The difference is that when society feels that these mistakes need to be corrected, the government sooner or later has to respond, because citizens are free to voice their opinions and influence the debate. That happened with the abolition of slavery, and that happened again with the civil rights movement. Elements of the government did try to fight the civil rights movement, but ultimately Martin Luther King was not sent off to a labor camp for re-education. That meant he was able to keep speaking out to persuade our society and our government to try to do the right thing.

That happened with the abolition of slavery, and that happened again with the civil rights movement. Elements of the government did try to fight the civil rights movement, but ultimately Martin Luther King was not sent off to a labor camp for re-education. That meant he was able to keep speaking out to persuade our society and our government to try to do the right thing.

I'm not sure if that exactly supports your point. Many people were beaten or hanged during slavery for resisting, and it took a "war between the states" to eventually force the lower half of the country to give up their practice of slavery.

Same thing with the civil rights movement -- many people were beaten or jailed for demanding that (gasp!) people were equal despite skin color, which most civilized people have come to accept.

If its history we're talking about, then what about America's history of human rights abuse (slave trade anyone?), or the UK (slaves again, plus that whole empire thing, and navvies).

That America and that UK no longer exist. All of the people that comprised them are dead. Most modern citizens and government representatives strongly condemn these past actions.

Compare that to modern day China, where the people responsible for Tienanmen are still in power.

for the US that past isn't too far back, we are in fact talking just decades since the 'not slaves any more honest' were fully accorded the rights they were promised by Lincoln.

But no matter the behavior of the US, it doesn't excuse China's behavior. The US continues to have major racial problems, but that doesn't mean that China shouldn't be held accountable for THEIR human rights abuses. We should be working f

If its history we're talking about, then what about America's history of human rights abuse (slave trade anyone?), or the UK (slaves again, plus that whole empire thing, and navvies).

I object to ALL human rights abuses. As it stands the subject of *this* conversation and *this* Olympics is China's human right's abuses.

So, check your history before declaring China to be the fount of all that is wrong in the world.

I'm well versed in the human rights abuses of Western countries, thank you very much. I did have an open mind on China during the lead up to the Olympics, but as I learned more it's evident that China has a record of human rights abuses at least as bad as western countries.

Oppression is a trans-national phenomenon that must be challenged wherever it occurs.

I believe the grandparent was referring to how the human rights abuses are reported. For example, in the UK there was the 2005 incident where Jean Charles de Menezes was shot by police for running while looking a bit foreign. In the local press, this was covered as a serious abuse of police power by a small number of individuals and a total failure of the system. It could easily have been covered as a government-sponsored assassination of someone rumoured to have been criticising official policy. If you

To be honest, I think you're missing the point totally. Not only is there absolutely no evidence that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot for criticising official policy, I'm not aware of any evidence of him criticising policy.

On the other hand, there is plenty of fairly solid evidence of bad things happening to people who criticise the Chinese government or its policies, and of deliberate attempts by the police to shut them up (usually, but not always, in the non-fatal sense). While it's unclear if these a

"I remember videos and reports of the Chinese government running over one of their own citizens with a tank" - Apparently you don't remember it very well, as no one got run over in that particular infamous incident.

They certainly did get run over at Tienanmen Square. An ex-flatmate's brother lost his leg there. You're talking about the famous photo of the guy stopping the tank by standing in front of it, but that wasn't the only tank, and they didn't always stop.

I am not sure but a chinese guy in my team (I live in Australia) was browsing something which was obviously slashdot: same colors, layout, software etc but in chinese. I said to him hey thats slashdot and he said whats slashdot?.

Slash, the code that runs Slashdot, is open source and freely available - http://www.slashcode.com/ [slashcode.com] - there are lots of sites that bear more than a passing resemblance to Slashdot simply because the codebase is the same.

Slash, the code that runs Slashdot, is open source and freely available - http://www.slashcode.com/ [slashcode.com] - there are lots of sites that bear more than a passing resemblance to Slashdot simply because the codebase is the same.

Yeah but I think sourceforge own the look and feel. I believe there was once a slashdot in spain but I can't find it now. The slashdot page on wikipedia has a link to a japanese slashdot.

I think somebody has ripped off the L&F for their own site in China. Wouldn't be the first time.

Slashdot commented upon in the year 2008 will be the coldest this century, according to data supplied by the British Meteorological Office, due to the climatic phenomenon of "girls" that cools the waters of the Pacific Ocean.

Kickass, so according to the Google translation of Spanish... all we need are more girls, and the planet wont get hotter?...huh... it would be a climactic phenomenon though...

I was in China a couple of weeks ago to visit family and friends. I was in Nanjing and I used the internet to check on the availability of some site that I frequently use.

There are 3 kinds of sites in China in terms of availability. The first is the site with its server in China, these sites are usually fast and reliable. But sometimes you can find a foreign site that responds really fast, like slashdot did for me.

The second are the sites that are totally blocked. Apart from the obvious ones like FalunGong

Precisely, it's not the government, but the officials are so concerned about that. Mao taught the people a lesson that they have to be "political correct" otherwise you will lose your head (most likely not only you but your family), that's 70's and has since become a culture. Today, you won't lose your head that easily (there's a lot of voices against the government in local blog and forum) but for the officials, there is nothing "wrong" to be "political correct", why risking my job in doing the otherwise?

If you think we live under a government that the people fear, that's probably how an extreme Chinese might think about the American too (under the fear of terrorism and the watch of the Big Brother). The fact is, no we are not, and we are probably the same. Both China and US, the general public are not affected, we still work, play, shop and watching porn unaffected. We both think the government is stupid. There might be a little difference how we voice out about our hate to the government, but other than that, I think there are no difference. (Ok, I'm a Hong Kong citizen currently living and working in Shanghai, closely interactive with my colleagues who are Chinese. I also regularly travel to US for working purpose and has been an Exchange student there.)

Dude! The fact that the olympics are in China in the first place is a huge political stunt. Everyone knew this kind of shit would happen, but still, the IOC wanted to give China a chance to show the world how it had changed for the better. Indeed, a few political/human-rights issues were at the heart of that deal, but as soon as China had secured the olympics, they went right back to their abusive habits. They got what they wanted, and they decided to show the world they're nobody's bitch.

Thing is, the Chinese people don't see it the same way as you and I, because this is how it's been for years. Boil a frog slowly...

Free speech is a delicate battle in the rest of the world, because it gets in the way of government power mongers. In China, they've had power mongers forever, so the concept of free speech does not exist at all - it gets squashed anytime it pops up, "to protect society".

It's a whole different world over there, one that's very difficult for us to completely understand.